FFP

[cdbearsfan]

Sure. But RCF seemed to suggest the rules are unfair because they discriminate against clubs with small stadiums. I just said that's their choice. In any case, they play in one of the wealthiest parts of Europe and have a county of nearly half a million to themselves. They should easily be aiming to fill a reasonably-sized stadium. Nothing like Wigan who are surrounded by a load of massive clubs and aren't even the biggest sport team in their own town. Nobody ever seriously thought they were a long-term proposition.

[PeterWithesShin]

Again, they didn't own own the ground for 20 years which made doing any major work difficult. They do now and so are looking at expanding to 20k. They're doing it the right way imo.

[cdbearsfan]

Maybe. But still no need to moan about the loss of revenue which was their own choice. Not that they are moaning, to my knowledge. I was replying to RCF's point.

[Garyth]

The new rules will clearly favour those teams who have owners with buckets of money to 'invest' in the team and infrastructure (incl us).

Will we see a team that isn't funded by hugely wealthy owners make the champions league in the in the next 20 years? - I personally doubt it - let alone winning the league. It's ridiculous how few clubs in the entire league system break even - everyone begs at the hands of their owners, just to keep up.

I wish overspending incurred a heavier financial 'tax', which in turn was channeled back into the whole pyramid, but that's never going to be agreed to.

[algy]

The thing is for Bournemouth, they’ve shown over the last decade that they’re a pretty well run club. It’s not like they’re a flash-in-the-pan, Barnsley-type team.

But it’s not actually _feasible_ for them to compete at the top end of the league currently. They’d need a huge revenue (and rich owner isn’t enough, as shown by our case) … but realistically how many teams are in our position? Where the owners can shove ticket prices up to being some of the most expensive in the world, and *still* be expanding the ground to 50k (presumably they’ve good reason to believe they’ll sell the extra tickets).

The thought of 99% of teams ever filling a 50k+ stadium is laughable. The rules as they are prevent all bar maybe a dozen teams from  competing in *any* circumstances (the scab 6, us, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Sunderland, Leeds). That’s without the elements of the rules that allow say Man Utd to spend £200m a year indefinitely whilst we pretty much have to break even whilst slashing our wage bill.

I mean, regardless of whether those rules are just or not, it’s pretty obvious that both ourselves and Newcastle have been prevented from competing on a level playing field as a result. That’s going to be much, much harder for any club outside that dozen clubs who even have the capacity to generate revenue at a rate that even allows them to make a push for the top end of the table.

[aev]

Ugly.

[tomd2103]

The thing is for Bournemouth, they’ve shown over the last decade that they’re a pretty well run club. It’s not like they’re a flash-in-the-pan, Barnsley-type team.

But it’s not actually _feasible_ for them to compete at the top end of the league currently. They’d need a huge revenue (and rich owner isn’t enough, as shown by our case) … but realistically how many teams are in our position? Where the owners can shove ticket prices up to being some of the most expensive in the world, and *still* be expanding the ground to 50k (presumably they’ve good reason to believe they’ll sell the extra tickets).

The thought of 99% of teams ever filling a 50k+ stadium is laughable. The rules as they are prevent all bar maybe a dozen teams from  competing in *any* circumstances (the scab 6, us, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Sunderland, Leeds). That’s without the elements of the rules that allow say Man Utd to spend £200m a year indefinitely whilst we pretty much have to break even whilst slashing our wage bill.

I mean, regardless of whether those rules are just or not, it’s pretty obvious that both ourselves and Newcastle have been prevented from competing on a level playing field as a result. That’s going to be much, much harder for any club outside that dozen clubs who even have the capacity to generate revenue at a rate that even allows them to make a push for the top end of the table.

Yep.  The difference between the 'big six' and us and Newcastle in commercial income etc. is huge, but then the difference between us and the next best performing team (West Ham) is big as well.  That's before you even consider aspiring teams in the Championship.  Coventry's commercial income was around £9.1m for example.

[LeeB]

The thing is for Bournemouth, they’ve shown over the last decade that they’re a pretty well run club. It’s not like they’re a flash-in-the-pan, Barnsley-type team.

But it’s not actually _feasible_ for them to compete at the top end of the league currently. They’d need a huge revenue (and rich owner isn’t enough, as shown by our case) … but realistically how many teams are in our position? Where the owners can shove ticket prices up to being some of the most expensive in the world, and *still* be expanding the ground to 50k (presumably they’ve good reason to believe they’ll sell the extra tickets).

The thought of 99% of teams ever filling a 50k+ stadium is laughable. The rules as they are prevent all bar maybe a dozen teams from  competing in *any* circumstances (the scab 6, us, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Sunderland, Leeds). That’s without the elements of the rules that allow say Man Utd to spend £200m a year indefinitely whilst we pretty much have to break even whilst slashing our wage bill.

I mean, regardless of whether those rules are just or not, it’s pretty obvious that both ourselves and Newcastle have been prevented from competing on a level playing field as a result. That’s going to be much, much harder for any club outside that dozen clubs who even have the capacity to generate revenue at a rate that even allows them to make a push for the top end of the table.

Yep.  The difference between the 'big six' and us and Newcastle in commercial income etc. is huge, but then the difference between us and the next best performing team (West Ham) is big as well.  That's before you even consider aspiring teams in the Championship.  Coventry's commercial income was around £9.1m for example.

I reckon my mate at work is probably responsible for half Coventry's commercial income with what he buys for him and his three lads.

[Legion]

Sandwell Town in a spot of bother?

[jwarry]

Sandwell Town in a spot of bother?

Looks like it, but they are in denial

[PaulWinch again]

It’s interesting isn’t it - Sheffield Wednesday, who have already been heavily punished from a sporting perspective, are told another 15 points next year. I get there’s a balance to strike, but the punishments which presumably are aimed as deterrent for putting clubs at financial risk are likely undermining attempts to find someone to secure the future of the club. So essentially the prospective owners are being punished as well as the club.

Meanwhile, proven historical cheating results in Chelsea getting what amounts to a slap on the wrist (if that). Main mitigations are transparency and it not being on the new owners watch.

I realise it’s Premier League versus Football League, but the FA sit over this. I’m sure they’ll look to influence and balance this type of thing out…

[Chap]

Sandwell Town in a spot of bother?

Looks like it, but they are in denial

Sheff Wednesday too, interesting read.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cz0eekymmkko